On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:20:48AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Rodrigo,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 02:58:25PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > The cast from "long" to "unsigned long" is unnecessary. Remove
> > > it.
> >
> > I don'
Hi Rodrigo,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 02:58:25PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > The cast from "long" to "unsigned long" is unnecessary. Remove
> > it.
>
> I don't believe we can be that bold in this statement.
> Some static analyzer tool
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> The cast from "long" to "unsigned long" is unnecessary. Remove
> it.
I don't believe we can be that bold in this statement.
Some static analyzer tools might not agree and tell that
if the start or end are negative values we could have
u
The cast from "long" to "unsigned long" is unnecessary. Remove
it.
In this case, the variables "start" and "end" are of type long
because they need to account for the possibility of negative
values. However, they are subsequently moved to "unsigned long"
since addresses are typically handled as un
